Delete a file or directory with mandatory confirmation before removal. Supports recursive deletion for directories on local or remote hosts.
Fajl vagy konyvtar torlese. MINDIG megerositest ker.
Args: params (DeletePathInput): path, recursive, host. Returns: str: Megerosites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly adds 'MINDIG megerositest ker' (always asks for confirmation), which is behavioral context not present in the annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with them without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by minimal Args/Returns sections. It has no unnecessary padding, though the Args line is slightly incomplete by not mentioning response_format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and an output schema are present, the description is largely complete for a simple deletion tool. It adds the key confirmation behavior and correctly describes the return as confirmation, while heavier parameter details are left to the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section lists only 'path, recursive, host' inside params but provides no semantics, types, defaults, or constraints, and omits response_format entirely. Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description does not compensate for the missing parameter guidance, even though the nested JSON schema itself has some field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation: 'Fajl vagy konyvtar torlese' (delete file or directory). This is a specific verb plus resource and distinguishes delete_path from siblings like apt_remove, snap_remove, and host_remove, which operate on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only says what the tool does, not how to choose it over other path-related tools such as move_path or write_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.